Found at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 164 / 1995 Coll.

The proposal that, on 1 June 1994, Article I (122) of Act No. 74 / 1994 Coll., amending and supplementing the Labour Code No. 65 / 1965 Coll., as amended, and certain other laws which deleted the words "to increase the pensions granted under these Regulations' from the second sentence of Paragraph 195 (1) of the Second Labour Code, are rejected.

On 1 October 1995, the provisions of Article VI (6) of Act No. 74 / 1994 Coll., amending and supplementing the Labour Code No. 65 / 1965 Coll., as amended, and certain other laws; in the remainder, where the retroactive repeal of this provision was proposed on 1 June 1994, the application shall be rejected.

On 20 December 1994, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from a group of 66 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 8 December 1994, in which the signed Members, referring to the provisions of Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution ') and Article 70 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, propose that the Constitutional Court annul, on 1 June 1994, the provisions of the Constitution. I point 122 of Act No 74 / 1994 Coll., amending and supplementing the Labour Code No 65 / 1965 Coll., as amended, and certain other laws which deleted in the second sentence of Paragraph 195 (1) of the Labour Code the words" to increase the pension granted under those Regulations', as well as the provisions of Article VI (6) of the same Act, since these provisions, in the opinion of the draftsmen, are contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of the Labour Code, to the provisions of Articles 1, 3 (1), 29 (1) and 30 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter '), to the ILO Conventions (hereinafter" MOP') No 12, 17 and 42 on compensation of accidents at work and occupational diseases and to Article 19 (8) of the ILO.

It follows from the report on the 17th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, held between 22 and 24 March 1994, that Law No 74 / 1994 Coll. was adopted at that meeting by the necessary majority of Members within the meaning of Article 39 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. This Act entered into force on 1.6.1994 (except for Article I (90), which entered into force on 1.9.1994, and Article VII (7), which entered into force on 1.1.1995) and was published in the amount of 23 / 1994 Coll. sent out on 29.4.1994. The condition of admissibility of the proposal within the meaning of the provisions of Section 66 (1) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll.

According to the provisions of § 42 (3) and § 69 of Law No 182 / 1993, the Constitutional Court sent a motion to initiate proceedings to the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic, in whose written observations on the content of the proposal signed by Dr. Milan Udem, it is essentially stated that, when discussing the draft amendment to the Labour Code in the Chamber of Deputies, which was later published in the Collection of Laws under No 74 / 1994, Mr J. Něčík made a proposal to remove the irregularity resulting from the proposed adjustment. In that draft amendment, it was recommended to abolish the limits limiting the amount of compensation granted until now for the loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work incurred by workers because of an accident at work or occupational disease, on the ground that the workers are to be paid for the real damage. However, this proposal did not, at the same time, allow for the elimination of a certain advantage for certain injured workers, consisting of the fact that the calculation of compensation for loss of earnings under Section 195 of the Labour Code did not take into account the indexation of invalidity pensions. In order to eliminate this irregularity, it therefore recommended, in the second sentence of Paragraph 195 (1) of the Labour Code, to delete the words "to increase the pensions granted under these Regulations." No one has spoken against this proposal in the debate, and this amendment was adopted in the vote by a ratio of 102 votes in favour, 34 against and 39 abstentions. According to that statement, it should also be taken into account that not only invalidity pensions awarded on account of accidents at work or occupational disease, but also the average earnings prior to the occurrence of damage, from which compensation for loss of earnings is to be determined, are phased out. It is further noted that Law No 74 / 1994 Coll. was adopted by the necessary majority of Members and the legislature therefore acted in the belief that the law adopted was in line with the Constitution and our legal order.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, in its observations on the application for annulment of the contested provisions requested by the Constitutional Court, stresses that the new regulation consistently fulfils the principle of compensation for the real damage suffered by workers as a result of an accident at work or an occupational disease. Thus, the injured person receives as much as his average earnings before the damage occurred in compensation for the loss of earnings, along with the earnings and possible disability pension. The new regulation thus ensures equal status of all victims who receive compensation for loss of earnings after the end of incapacity for work, whether or not they receive an invalidity or partial invalidity pension as a result of an accident at work or occupational disease. The beneficiaries of the invalidity pension were, according to previous arrangements, favoured by the fact that they were in fact receiving more than their average earnings before the occurrence of the damage, which was also different between the beneficiaries of the invalidity pension depending on when the invalidity pension was granted - the earlier the disability pension was awarded, the higher the increase.

As regards the increase in the compensation for the loss of earnings after the end of incapacity for work, it is noted that the increase is not linked to the obligation to increase these allowances in a ratio of 1: 1 to the increase in the average wage in the national economy. Valorisation of the average earnings applicable to the calculation of the compensation for loss of earnings is carried out and responds to the growth of the average wage in the national economy. The amendments to the provisions of § 195 of the Labour Code, implemented by Act No. 74 / 1994 Coll., do not favour employers or employees, since the damaged workers are paid real damage. By Law No 74 / 1994 Coll. the limits limiting the amount of compensation were also abolished (referred to in § 195 (2) of the Labour Code in force before 1 June 1994) and employers are, on the contrary, burdened by the indexation of compensation for loss of earnings. The employer is not obliged to provide compensation only if no loss of earnings has been incurred by a worker who has suffered an accident at work or who has been diagnosed with an occupational disease. In addition, in the Ministry's view, it should be borne in mind that the compensation for the loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work is only one of the types of compensation due to the injured workers and the purpose of this compensation is to compensate the employee for the loss of earnings incurred after the cessation of incapacity for work or for the recognition of invalidity due to accidents at work or occupational disease.

On request from the Constitutional Court, the Czech Statistical Office provided a table clarifying the development of the average monthly wage of national economy workers according to the basic sectors for the period 1980 to 1993, which shows that during that period, the average monthly wage was represented by the following amounts (in the Czech Republic, respectively): 2656, 2699, 2765, 2822, 2875, 2920, 2964, 3026, 3095, 3170, 3286, 3792, 4644 and 5817. The estimated monthly salary for 1994 was CZK 6896. These figures were used to compare with the evolution of the indexation of the average earnings applicable to the calculation of the loss of earnings after the disability.

The labour responsibility for damage is based in our legal system on the principle of compensation for actual damage, i.e. the whole actual damage. This principle is also based on responsibility for damage to work accidents and occupational diseases. This principle of compensation for actual damage must also be based on interpretation and assessment of the amended provision of Section 195 (1) of the Labour Code as regards its objected inconstitutionality. The Labour Code No. 65 / 1965 Coll., which took effect on 1 January 1966, provided that the worker who suffered an accident at work or who was diagnosed with an occupational disease was obliged, to the extent that he was responsible for the damage, to provide, in addition to other compensation (painful, difficult social application, effectively incurred costs associated with the treatment and material damage) and compensation for loss of earnings (§ 193 of the Labour Code). In Section 195 of the Labour Code, the legislature further specified that compensation for loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work or recognition of full or partial invalidity would be granted to a worker at a level such that, together with his earnings after an accident at work or after the detection of an occupational disease, plus any invalidity or partial invalidity pension provided for the same reason, his average earnings before the accident at work or the detection of an occupational disease, or according to the amended version of Amendment 153 / 1969 Coll., still in force, before the occurrence of damage caused by an occupational accident or an occupational disease. In doing so, neither the increase in disability pension for helplessness nor the reduction in disability pension under social security rules should be taken into account. The amount of compensation for loss of earnings after the end of incapacity for work was limited and may not, together with earnings and possible invalidity pension, exceed 2500 CZK per month. For workers with an average earnings of more than 2500 CZK, this amount increased by 50% of the difference between that earnings and 2500 CZK. By providing for Article 202 (2) of the Labour Code, the Government of the CSSR was then empowered, in agreement with the Central Council of Trade Unions, to adjust the conditions, the amount and the manner in which this compensation was made, in view of changes in the wage level.

In view of the nominal increase in wages, the level of compensation for loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work started to fall behind wage developments, as the Government of the CSSR decided to calculate the compensation for loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work for the first time only by its Regulation No 138 / 1976 Coll., on the adjustment of certain compensation for loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work injury or occupational disease. In particular, after the adoption of Act No. 121 / 1975 Coll., on social security, which increased the previously granted pensions, the general courts then began to consider actions by employees - beneficiaries of full (partial) invalidity pension granted by reason of an accident at work or occupational disease - for whom, as a result of an increase in the disability pension, the employer reduced the amount of compensation for loss of earnings by that increase. The Court of First Instance of the Czech Republic consolidated the Opinion of its Civil College of 13.12.1977 Cpj 167 / 77 (see Bulletin NS 2 / 1978, Rc 37 / 77), where it stated that when calculating the compensation for loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for employment under the provisions of Section 195 (1) of the Labour Code, the amount of which the invalidity or partial disability pension was increased under Act No. 121 / 1975 Coll. This increase, according to the opinion, cannot be regarded as a material change of circumstances on the part of the injured party within the meaning of Paragraph 202 (1) of the Labour Code. The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic based its opinion on a political directive on a five-year national economy development plan for the years 1971- 1975 setting out the task of social policy - to increase the standard of living of those who are unable to participate in the labour process accordingly with the increase in national income. He also referred to the preamble and Article 1 (6) of Act No. 121 / 1975 Coll. highlighting the social programme of strengthening the social security of citizens, which is reflected in the growth of the standard of living of workers by increasing paid (previously granted) pensions. It was therefore not possible, according to the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, to take account of the amount by which the invalidity or partial invalidity pension was increased, since workers who suffered from accidents at work or occupational diseases would not have been involved in these benefits, on the contrary the organisations responsible for the damage caused by accidents at work or occupational diseases would have benefited.

This view was also legally expressed by Decree of the Government of the Government of the Czech Republic No. 138 / 1976 Coll., in § 2 (2), where it expressly stated that the increase in the invalidity or partial disability pension under the social security rules would not be taken into account when calculating the compensation for loss of earnings. This legislation was then reflected by Act No. 188 / 1988 Coll., amending and supplementing the Labour Code, even in the wording of § 195 of the Labour Code. Its aim was to keep the level of wage compensation in a certain relation to nominal growth of the average wage in the national economy, with insufficient indexation of the average earnings applicable to the calculation of the loss compensation. However, that legislative solution has put the victims at a disadvantage who have not received an invalidity or partial invalidity pension as a result of an accident at work or occupational disease. Therefore, it was not a systemic measure, but only a representative solution to the lack of indexation of the earnings applicable to the calculation of compensation for loss of earnings. At the same time, the unambiguity of the legislative provision of judicial caselaw in the text of the law was limited by the discretion of the judge in determining the amount of compensation for the damage suffered, i.e. compensation based on the principle of compensation for the actual damage and its consistent respect.

The amendment of the 1994 Labour Code, implemented by Act No. 74 / 1994 Coll., deleted from the provisions of Paragraph 195 (1) the words "to increase the pensions granted under these Regulations" (i.e. the increase is therefore not taken into account when calculating the compensation for loss of earnings) and thus returned to legal status before 1 January 1989. At the same time, however, as will be stated below, the limitation on the amount of compensation which, together with the earnings and disability pension, was not allowed to exceed the fixed amount was abolished. Thus, the amended adjustment is based on the principle of compensation for the actual loss of earnings, which is also supported by the currently applied method of indexing the average earnings applicable to the calculation of compensation for loss of earnings. The proposal by Members refers to the amendment of Section 195 (1) of the Labour Code as an unprecedented state intervention in favour of employers. However, in view of the above reasons, this claim cannot be attested, nor can it be attested to the appellants in that, by failing to pay the rent or part of it after 1 June 1994, employers or other responsible entities were unreasonably enriched within the meaning of § 451 et seq. of the Civil Code. It should also be pointed out at this point that this is a wider problem arising from the fact that since 1956 (Act No. 54 / 1956 Coll. and No. 55 / 1956 Coll.), until now, in our legal order compensation for accidents at work is designed in such a way that the cost of compensation is largely covered by social and health insurance (formerly social security) and only the remainder is paid in the form of compensation by the employer. In the current change in the entire social and health insurance system, on which employees are also involved in the payment of insurance premiums, the compensation should be borne to an increasing extent by the employer and should therefore, as a matter of principle, consist of such compensation. It is therefore a broader issue requiring a legislative solution for the whole area, which cannot be addressed or replaced in a partial way.

The amended version of the Labour Code, effective from 1 June 1994, also deleted the entire paragraph 2 from Paragraph 195, thus also placing emphasis on the principle of compensation for actual damage. The text of this paragraph was previously amended by Act No. 188 / 1988 Coll., which reduced the amount of compensation for loss of earnings by applying the limit only after 12 months of provision of this refund, and for workers whose earnings before the damage occurred were counted as 75%. Thus, workers affected by accidents at work or occupational diseases were not paid for real damage, but less damage, as a result of this limitation, in cases of earnings above that limit. Thus, by amending the 1994 Labour Code, by deleting paragraph 2 of Section 195, the limitation of compensation was fully abolished.

For the overall assessment of the level of compensation for the loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work caused by accidents or occupational diseases, it is appropriate to compare to what extent the indexation of the average earnings applicable to the calculation of such compensation (according to Section 202 (2) of the Labour Code) corresponds to the development of wages in the national economy for a comparable period as established in the report of the Czech Statistical Office, i.e. whether and to what extent the revised version of the Labour Code materially respects the principle of compensation for real damage when providing such compensation. Valorisation of the average earnings relevant for calculating the loss-of-earnings compensation was established by the following legislation:

- Government Order No. 138 / 1976 Coll.,

- Government Decree No. 60 / 1982 Coll.,

- Act No. 297 / 1991 Coll.,

- Decree No. 191 / 1993 Coll.,

- Decree of the Government No. 263 / 1994 Coll.

Decree No. 138 / 1976 Coll. and No. 60 / 1982 Coll. and Act No. 297 / 1991 Coll. have been validated gradually by the income responsible for calculating the compensation for the loss of earnings by 2% for each calendar year after the entitlement was established until 1989 inclusive. Pursuant to Act No. 297 / 1991 Coll. then the indexation for the calendar year 1990 was 5% and 5% for the first half of 1991. Decree of the Government No. 191 / 1993 Coll. valorized the profit for the calculation of compensation for the second half of 1991 by 18.5%, for the first half of 1992 by 5%, for the second half of 1992 by 20% and for the first half of 1993 by 10%. The latest indexation made by the Government Decree No. 263 / 1994 Coll. increased significantly the profit for the calculation of the compensation by 30%, but with the limit of the increase in the relevant earnings up to a maximum of CZK 13,000 gross. (This latest government regulation was issued on 7.12.1994 and is not quoted in the opening proposal dated 8.12.1994.)

It can be concluded from a comparison of the evolution of the average monthly wage of workers in the national economy, with an increase in the compensation for loss of earnings, carried out by successive government regulations, that the indexation of the average earnings applicable to the calculation of the compensation for loss of earnings reflects the development of the average earnings in the national economy.

By abolishing the limitation of the compensation paid (Section 195 (2) of the Labour Code) and deleting the obligation that the principle of compensation for actual damage is strengthened in the amended version of the Labour Code in order to increase the granted invalidity or partial invalidity pensions when determining the amount of compensation (Section 195 (1) of the Second Labour Code).

The Constitutional Court shall, pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution, decide on the repeal of laws or their individual provisions if they are contrary to a constitutional law or an international treaty pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution. International agreements referred to in Article 10 The Constitution means only the ratified and declared international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms which bind the Czech Republic. These international agreements are then immediately binding and take precedence over the law, i.e. in the event of a conflict between the contract and the law, the contract applies.

Several international treaties are mentioned in the draft group of Members:

- with which the text of the provisions of Article 3 (1) (a) of Regulation (EU) No 1308 / 2013 is added. I point 122 of Act No 74 / 1994 Coll. proposed to be deleted in the view of the appellants in contravention (ILO Conventions 12, 17 and 42 on compensation for accidents at work and occupational diseases and ILO Constitution),

- or used as an interpretative instrument (Declaration on Social Progress and Development and the ILO Constitution).

From the point of view of the assessment of the issue, ILO Convention No. 17 on Compensation for Work Accidents (Communication No. 437 / 1990 Coll.) is important. In fact, ILO Convention No 42 (Communication No 438 / 1990 Coll.) provides for an obligation for a participating State to grant compensation to persons affected by one of the occupational diseases no lower than compensation for accidents at work (Article 1 of the Convention cited) and ILO Convention No 12 (Communication No 437 / 1990 Coll.) merely ensures that the benefits of compensation for industrial accidents are extended to agriculture. It can then be seen from the content of ILO Convention No 17 that the right to compensation (and medical assistance) may alternatively be satisfied either by the employer or by an accident, sickness or disability insurance undertaking (Article 6, 9, 10, 11 of the quoted Convention), but this Convention does not provide for any directives or principles for determining the extent of compensation, namely the amount of the income provided in the case of permanent incapacity for work of the injured worker. In that situation, where neither of the ILO Conventions referred to in the application initiating the procedure provides for the extent of the compensation, nor the principles for its determination, but also the compensation by an entity other than the employer, it cannot be inferred from the content contradiction of the proposal of a group of Members contested by the provision of Law No 74 / 1994 Coll. with those Conventions, regardless of the fact that such conventions are not included in the conventions on fundamental human rights and freedoms under the internal classification of the ILO, and therefore cannot be regarded as international agreements within the meaning of Article 10 of the Constitution. (In this respect, the Constitutional Court refers to the position it has taken in the cases referred to in sp. zn. In the view of the Constitutional Court, there can be no contradiction between that provision and the ILO Constitution. The point of Article 19 (8) of the ILO Constitution, to which the motion from Members refers, is significantly shifted in the proposal. The text of this Article provides that: "In no case shall any member be required to reduce the protection already provided by his own legislation as a result of the adoption, recommendation or ILO Convention. 'It is, therefore, an internationally recognised principle that ratification of international treaties is without prejudice to more favourable rights, protection and conditions provided and guaranteed by national legislation.

The motion by Members also contradicts the amended provision of Section 195 (1) of the Labour Code with Article 1 of the Constitution and Articles 1, 3 (1), 29 (1) and 30 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms:

- Article 1 The Constitution states that the Czech Republic is a sovereign, united and democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. In this context, the motion of Members argues that the amended version of Paragraph 195 (1) of the Labour Code contradicts the definitions of the rule of law, namely the principles of legal certainty, the preservation of acquired rights and the protection of citizens' trust in law. In particular, the principle of legal certainty as a central character and presumption of the rule of law underlines the effective protection of the rights of all legal entities and the predictability of the procedure of the State and its institutions towards legal entities, in particular as regards the application of sanctions in the event of a breach of legislation by a legal entity. The principle of legal certainty was not affected by this amendment to the Labour Code, as the new regulation is based on the emphasis on the compensation of the actual damage resulting from the loss of earnings - which is a compensation which is precisely and merely a right acquired - and thus provides effective protection of the rights of the injured entity. The principle of the protection of acquired rights, in other words the inadmissibility of the withdrawal of acquired rights, closely linked to legal certainty and derived from the prohibition of retroactivity of laws, is consistently respected by the fact that the acquired right to compensation for the loss of earnings is maintained by the amendment carried out and supported by the principle of compensation for actual damage by taking account of changed circumstances. Nor can we speak of a breach of the principle of non-retroactivity. Only cases of so-called "true retroactivity 'could be regarded as inadmissible, where the new legislation itself changes the emergence of a legal relationship or the consequences of a legal relationship that occurred before its effective date. However, a new regulation of the legal consequences of a legal relationship previously established ex nunc cannot be excluded, as is the case with the provision under consideration. The principle of legal certainty, which includes the protection of acquired rights, enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution, was also not affected by the amendment of Paragraph 195 (1) of the Labour Code.

- Article 1 of the Charter provides that people are free and equal in dignity and in rights. The proposal by Members in this context states that the amendment of Section 195 of the Labour Code distorts the normally created equality between workers and employers in their mutual responsibility for the safety and protection of life and the health of workers at work. Equality in rights as defined in Article 1 The Charter is essentially the contents of the Charter and is reflected in a number of its provisions. In doing so, it is necessary to distinguish between general provisions on equality and special provisions which guarantee equality in certain areas or situations. However, the proposal does not state which provisions of the Charter or other constitutional law or of the lower legislation underpin this claim. The rule of law in force is not based on the general equality of employees and employers; it is only possible to deduce certain specific cases of equality between employees and employers, such as equality in employment contracts. The regulation of labour relations in the field of safety and health at work is not based on equality between workers and employers, both in terms of prevention and accountability, and compensation for accidents at work and occupational diseases, and therefore there can be no objection to the amendment of the Labour Code to Article 1 of the Charter. At the same time, it should be noted in this context that the amended arrangements for the refunds have eliminated the inequalities which have unjustifiably occurred among the victims. The damage suffered as a result of an accident at work or an occupational disease of an invalidity pension was favoured in the previous legislation because they received compensation for loss of earnings from other injured persons, plus an increase in disability pensions.

- Article 3 (1) The Charter guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to all without distinction of sex, race, colour, language, faith and religion, political or other thinking, national or social origin, membership of a national or ethnic minority, property, genus or other status. It thus guarantees and specifies equality in rights provided for in Article 1 of the Charter as a state of absence of any legal privileges. The draft Members in relation to this article of the Charter argue that the amendment of the Labour Code is also a gross discrimination against a large group of persons who have been injured in or directly linked to the performance of their duties. This discrimination is intended to consist of an arbitral social disadvantage for a large group of disabled persons and an unjustified advantage for employers at their expense. Article 3 of the Charter creates a substantive guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms regardless of status (gender, race, etc.). In fact, this provision is complementary to the principle of equality and seeks to create a state of non-discrimination. Existing discrimination could be brought about if the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms were adversely affected as a result of a reason such as gender, language, political thinking, social origin or other status, while others, not burdened by that reason, would benefit from the exercise of their fundamental rights and freedoms (privileged). However, the group of so-called "discriminated 'which, because of their position, would be subject to restrictions on their fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be defined on the basis of the fundamental right or freedom infringed in relation to them, since it is not discrimination, but the state of violation of fundamental right or freedom. For this reason, there cannot be a meritorial objection to the amendment of the Labour Code with that article in the Charter.

- Article 29 (1) The Charter provides that women, adolescents and disabled persons are entitled to increased health protection at work and special working conditions. It therefore guarantees increased or special protection for the said bodies for the physical security itself in the event of incapacity for work, and thus also for compensation for accidents at work or occupational diseases.

- Article 30 (1) The Charter provides that citizens are entitled to adequate physical protection in their old age and incapacity to work, and that, according to paragraph 3 of this Article, the details are laid down by law. The draft alleged contradiction between Article 30 of the Charter guaranteeing adequate material security and the law which, by virtue of the authorisation of this Article of the Charter, provides for a specific amount of material security cannot take place for formal reasons. However, even from a point of view, the alleged contradiction of the amended version of § 195 of the Labour Code with this article of the Charter could not be attested precisely because the amendment, as mentioned above, respects the principle of compensation for real damage.

Those reasons therefore led the Constitutional Court to reject the application for annulment of Article I (122) of Act No 74 / 1994 Coll.

However, this is otherwise the case with regard to the second draft of a group of Members of the contested provision - Article VI (6) of Act No 74 / 1994 Coll. This provision, which is included in the transitional provision, provides that the adjustment for the loss of earnings after incapacity for work (§ 195) and the reimbursement of the maintenance costs of survivors (§ 199) shall also be made for workers and survivors to whom the compensation was due before 1 June 1994; This shall also apply to refunds decided or agreed before 1 June 1994.

It is clear from the Government's draft Act No. 74 / 1994 Coll. that, as regards the amendment of the provision of Section 195 of the Labour Code, the proposal only provided for the removal of a limit on the amount of compensation for loss of earnings after the end of the disability.

Article VI (6), which was already included as transitional provisions in the Government's proposal, therefore only meant making adjustments to compensation for loss of earnings as a result of an amendment to the earlier Paragraph 195 (2) - that is, making adjustments as a result of the removal of the limit into effect of the amendment - limiting the amount of compensation for loss of earnings. It therefore essentially envisaged adjustments made to the victims. In other words, its aim was to ensure that the compensation for the loss of earnings was calculated without a limit, even for those injured who were paid compensation for the loss of earnings even before the contested amendment took effect. Thus, nothing can be objected to Article VI (6) of Act No 74 / 1994 Coll. until now. The wording of Article VI (6) has not been modified in any way since the amendment was adopted and the provisions of Section 195 (1) of the Labour Code (by deleting the words "to increase the pensions granted under these Regulations'), as compared to the Government's draft of the contested law. Thus, this article, as amended, also affects the cases of victims who are damaged as a result of a new adjustment to the calculation of the compensation for loss of earnings - that is to say, due to the increase in pensions - to the reduction in the effectiveness of the amendment to the compensation for loss of earnings. In practice, this will be taken into account in particular for those injured, whose average earnings before or after damage occurred did not exceed the previously established limit. Thus, as a result of Article VI (6) of the Labour Code, or as a result of the obligation to make adjustments for loss of earnings, the amount of compensation to be paid by the employer may be reduced. It is in relation to these victims that, as a result of Article VI (6) of the Act cited, it is not in the general interest to withdraw the rights acquired properly. In this context, it should be pointed out that the transitional provision cited explicitly states that the implementation of the adjustment also applies to refunds which have been definitively decided or agreed on before 1 June 1994; One of the cornerstones on which legal certainty is built is undoubtedly respect for the final judgments of the courts and freely and legally concluded private law treaties. It is only exceptionally possible to have a situation where the law rightly intervenes in judicial decisions if it has been issued contrary to the generally accepted legal principles of democratic society. This idea was built on the construction of Act No. 119 / 1990 Coll., on Judicial Rehabilitation, but on such a situation in the case under consideration, where decisions or agreements were made in matters of employment relating to compensation for loss of earnings after the cessation of incapacity for work caused by accidents at work or occupational diseases, does not apply. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that the provision of Article VI (6) of the Act cited, in so far as it affects those cases where the amount received so far is reduced, which constitutes compensation for the loss of earnings caused by an accident at work or an occupational disease, is contrary to the principle of legal certainty, including the protection of citizens' trust in law, and has therefore complied with the application for annulment of that Article. However, the proposal for the retroactive annulment of that provision on 1 June 1994 could not have been complied with if it had itself infringed that principle by the retroactive withdrawal of that provision.

Given that Article VI (6) of Law No 74 / 1994 Coll. also affects, as mentioned above, cases of adjustment of compensation for loss of earnings (as well as reimbursement of the maintenance costs of survivors) for the benefit of the victims - and is therefore not unconstitutional in that part of it - that provision had to be repealed with effect from 1 October 1995 and thus provided sufficient time for the legislator to restate that provision. For these reasons, the Constitutional Court decided as stated in the operative part of this finding.